reconciling science, engineering and the Bible

﻿﻿I can't come right out and tell you what you need to know about these diagrams you are looking at without offending you to the point that you'll look away. Surely this is the most important of our taboos. It is socially unacceptable for me to tell you that your beliefs are completely wrong. I first have to ask your permission to tell you something you might not want to hear. So let me first ask if you are willing to hear this:

"Your understanding of the Bible is not just wrong. It is wrong to an extent that you probably can't even imagine."

​This sounds harsh, but it's not meant to be. It's a simple and to-the-point way of saying what I have to say. My concern is that talking about how much you misunderstand the Bible will offend you to the point that you'll stop reading and go on your way. If you do that, you won't be able to understand the diagrams you see on these pages. You won't understand why the people who wrote the Bible created a fully functional calendar that is more accurate than our modern calendar. You won't understand why the Bible writers thought it was important to put one of the ancient world's great scientific achievements in Genesis chapter 5.

The unfortunate thing about discussing the Bible is that most of us dismiss the ideas of anyone who does not already substantially agree with us. The atheists dismiss the theist argument. The Catholics dismiss the Jewish understanding of the New Testament. The Baptists dismiss the Mormons' Book. And when we cannot dismiss the other side's position, we argue without result. My position is that this multi-thousand-year argument continues because all sides are wrong about the Bible. If each side fundamentally misunderstands the Bible, and our first impulse is to divide into camps to defend our understandings, and we insist that our understanding gives us everlasting life, then there can never be agreement. Ever.

I think there can be agreement about the Bible but something has to happen to move each camp off of its old, inaccurate position. And that can't happen until someone actually proves that everyone is wrong. And that will be hurtful, offensive and maybe even devastating. Society says I have to get your permission before I can tell you something no one wants to hear about themselves. Your willingness to read on is a grant of that permission.

This is a radical, radical, radical thing that I am proposing. You need to know that. Some, if not all of it, will seem ridiculous. You also need to know that. The religious among you will think, "He must be an atheist" and the atheists among you will think "He must be a theist." That each side thinks of me in these terms emphasizes how radical my view of the Bible truly is. Let me assure you that I am surely not an atheist. Let me also assure you that the God of the Bible is not what you think of as a god. I can hear the atheists telling us: "Regardless of what he's saying, it's clear that he's a theist. Logically, you must be either a theist or an atheist." I can also hear the theists say: "If you don't believe the Bible is talking about God as I believe in Him, then you don't believe in God!" But my position is that when both sides are wrong about the Bible, I can be neither a theist nor an atheist by simply being right about the book.